“A finite world can support only a finite population; therefore, population growth must eventually equal zero.” ~Garrett Hardin
“We must alert and organise the world’s people to pressure world leaders to take specific steps to solve the two root causes of our environmental crises—exploding population growth and wasteful consumption of irreplaceable resources. Overconsumption and overpopulation underlie every environmental problem we face today.” ~Jacques-Yves Cousteau
Image Source: http://www.theglobaleducationproject.org/earth/human-conditions.phpIn Jonathan Swift’s famous 1729 parody of social policy, A Modest Proposal, the author’s “modest proposal” was for impoverished Irish to sell their children as food for the rich. Swift lampooned the rich landlords and policymakers of his day: “I grant this food may be somewhat dear, and therefore very proper for Landlords, who as they have already devoured most of the Parents, seem to have the best Title to the Children.”
Today, the closely-linked problems of population growth, resource depletion, and poverty still make it appear as if the rich are “eating” the world’s poor. In many countries, impoverished youth are faced with a terrible choice: either go hungry, or work long hours under harsh, unhealthy conditions for little pay. Rich countries extract valuable minerals in poor countries and grow luxury export crops such as coffee or oil palms, all the while shipping pesticides and toxic wastes back in return. Instead of raising the standard of living for poor countries, proceeds from sales to rich countries all too often become multinational corporation profit and raise the standard of living only for a few already-privileged local decision-makers.
Speaking of privileged, the U.S. holds only 5% of the world’s population, but consumes 20% of the world’s resources—and generates 20% of the world’s wastes. Just in terms of oil, the U.S. holds only 2% of known world reserves, but still consumes 20% of the world’s supplies. This is at our current 6.8 billion world population. But world population is projected to peak at over 9 billion folks around 2050!
Science-savvy fiction writer Isaac Asimov eloquently stated this dire problem: “Which is the greater danger—nuclear warfare or the population explosion? The latter absolutely! To bring about nuclear war, someone has to DO something; someone has to press a button. To bring about destruction by overcrowding, mass starvation, anarchy, the destruction of our most cherished values—there is no need to do anything. We need only do nothing except what comes naturally—and breed. And how easy it is to do nothing.”
Conserving energy is vitally important to reduce the environmental impacts of the world’s (relatively) rich and privileged. But there is no single personal decision you can make that will affect the world more significantly than the decision of whether or not to have another child. Even if everyone in “developed” countries drives hybrids and covers their roofs in solar panels, their offspring, despite all this energy efficiency, will continue consuming a disproportionate amount of the world’s resources and generating excess waste.
So, in tribute to Swift, my immodest proposal is this: Please consider having no more than two children—your “replacements,” so to speak. You may decide to have one biological child—or none at all—and consider adopting if you yearn for a larger family. With fewer children, your energy (and money) savings will dwarf even your most aggressive conservation measures!
In Sir David Attenborough’s words: “Instead of controlling the environment for the benefit of the population, maybe we should control the population to ensure the survival of our environment.”
2 comments:
There is no argument (pick your jaw up off the floor, Kyle)that a planet-locked population will reach an equilibrium with its resources, one way or another. Even if the relatively educated, chose to pull off exactly what you propose, there is still the issue of those who either cannot or will not moderate their procreation. As this likely represents more than half of the world's population, how do you propose we handle that? What kinds of strategies are ethical to employ? Will the ethics of human rights suffer in the face of those with power and influence seeking to protect what is important to them?
It is good to be thinking about these things and devising strategies for certain eventualities. The trick, of course, will be to do it in a way that maintains the integrity of our humanity, just as Jonathan Swift alluded to.
A difficult problem that it is important to think about, and an issue I address often in my talks and seminars.
Here are a couple of important considerations:
1. Because of built-in population momentum, we are committed to a peak population of *at least* 8.5 - 9.5 billion by 2050. This is because of the large number of people who have not yet had their 'replacement' babies. There is no policy available, humane or otherwise, short of war or fatal pandemics, that can avoid this 50% additional increase before we level off.
2. Probability is very high that the leveling off will take place no matter what policy or individual decisions are made between now and then. Population decline is already evident in a number of countries (mostly European) and is spreading to others.
To sum these two up, we don't have to do anything to see level population growth - it will happen - but we still have to endure a massive increase until it happens...
But this leads to a third consideration:
3. Our entire economic system is based on perpetual growth in every category: consumption, productivity, income and population. Shifting to a non-growth scenario will require a massive change in how we do economics. The real question is whether we can manage that shift without the current system collapsing completely.
One could be forgiven for being a bit doubtful that the masters of our current economic universe are up to that task...
Cheers!
Ed Brown
Post a Comment